AFS-16-1581-E 

Exemption No. 16703 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

SOUTHERN AEROMEDICAL INSTITUTE Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3596

 

for an exemption from § 61.31(g)(2) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated August 19, 2015, Dr. Paul Buza, Southern AeroMedical Institute (SAMI), 

1698 West Hibiscus Blvd, Melbourne, FL 32901 petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of SAMI for an exemption from section (§) 61.31(g)(2) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would 

allow SAMI to provide training and an endorsement to graduates of its program to meet the 

High Altitude Training requirements of § 61.31(g) using a simulation training device and 

oxygen masks within an altitude chamber. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Additional training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high 

altitudes. 

Section § 61.31(g)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that, 

 (2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in 

command of a pressurized aircraft unless that person has received and logged training from an 

authorized instructor in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device 

that is representative of a pressurized aircraft, and obtained an endorsement in the person's 

logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in 

the operation of a pressurized aircraft. The flight training must include at least the following 

subjects: 
2

(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 feet MSL; 

(ii) Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid decompression without actually 

depressurizing the aircraft; and 

(iii) Emergency descent procedures. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner states that its petition is intended to enhance and reinforce high altitude training 

objectives by supplementing existing training to demonstrate proficiency at altitude as well as 

at sea level. The petitioner notes that the relief to the training required for operating 

pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes, if granted, will enable SAMI to 

conduct better training by utilizing a unique Garmin G1000 equipped simulation device 

(representative of a TBM 850 cockpit) and Zodiac Aerospace oxygen masks within an altitude 

chamber. 

The petitioner states that replicating the cabin pressure conditions, as would exist during an 

actual inflight cabin decompression emergency, provides superior training compared to 

current programs conducted at sea level environments, where oxygen levels are normal and 

only a simulation of decompression is possible. The petitioner contends that in actual 

decompression events, pilots perform emergency procedures in the low cabin pressure 

environments. According to the petitioner, its simulation device set-up is such that the pilot 

will demonstrate proficiency in mask donning followed by proper communications and 

emergency descent procedures. The petitioner also contends that training conducted with the 

ability for a true reduction in cabin pressure teaches the signs and symptoms of hypoxia as it 

relates to the instrument and oxygen mask systems. The petitioner notes that the addition of 

exposure to, and practice in, a low oxygen environment also increases pilot knowledge on his 

or her specific signs and symptoms of hypoxia, and ultimately increases aviation safety. The 

petitioner also notes that FAA itself recommends learning physiological effects of hypoxia 

(FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 61-107B, paragraph 2-7) while engaged in mandatory type 

specific high altitude training that maintains and supplements further the fundamental 

principles of the high altitude endorsement. 

The petitioner also states that the unique configuration of SAMI’s simulation device within 

the high altitude chamber makes some aspects of a simulation device difficult to incorporate 

in an altitude chamber. The petitioner contends that the fundamental principles of the 

requirement to use a pressurized aircraft, flight simulator or flight-training device that is 

representative of a pressurized aircraft remain intact with minor variations to accommodate 

the unique and beneficial physiological training afforded by the high altitude chamber. 

Additionally, the petitioner states, “Our set-up meets the intent of the rule and, consequently, 

an equal level of safety.” The petitioner also states that the primary benefit to the public is the 

enhancement of pilot training to improve aviation safety. 
3

The petitioner provided pictures of the simulation device set-up within the altitude chamber, a 

curriculum overview, subject matter elements, and lesson scenarios with its request to support 

its petition. Additionally, on March 18, 2016, the FAA requested and received (by email 

correspondence) additional pictures of the simulation device set-up in the altitude chamber. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2015 

(80 FR 76612). No comments were received. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA reviewed the petitioner's supporting information and finds that SAMI has failed to 

demonstrate that this exemption, if granted, would provide an equivalent level of safety. 

According to the petitioner, this exemption would serve the public interest because it provides 

superior training to its graduates and will ultimately elevate aviation safety. Section 

61.31(g)(2), from which the petitioner request relief from, requires that a person receive and 

log training from an authorized instructor in a pressurized aircraft or a flight simulator or 

flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft. Although conducting high 

altitude training in device (other than a flight simulator or flight training device) within an 

altitude chamber increases pilot knowledge of his or her specific signs and symptoms of 

hypoxia, while practicing routine aircraft operations and emergency cabin decompression 

procedures, the device must meet basic standards. To determine that SAMI’s training device 

meets basic standards, the FAA considered the initial qualification requirements and 

standards set by 14 CFR part 60 for a flight simulator and a flight training device. The FAA 

also considered the initial qualification requirements and standards for the approval of an 

aviation training device. For this consideration, the FAA referred to FAA advisory circular 

(AC) 61-136A, which provides information and guidance for the approval of an aviation 

training device under § 61.4(c). Section 61.31(g)(2)(iii) requires that the flight training 

include emergency descent procedures. In respect to this consideration, SAMI failed to 

demonstrate that its device meets the intent of the rule. 

The FAA took into consideration not only the possible benefits provided by conducting high 

altitude training utilizing a simulation device within an altitude chamber, but also the initial 

qualification requirements to ensure that SAMI’s simulation device meets basic standards for 

a training device. Due to the added benefit of experiencing hypoxia, the FAA considered 

forgoing the requirement for the use of a flight simulator or flight training device in favor of a 

simulation device, with some minor variations for the fidelity of some technical minimum 

requirements (programming visual system, control force response, etc.). However, SAMI’s 

simulation device does not meet basic standards of having a control yoke (or control stick), 

rudder pedals, wing flaps, power levers, etc. Basic physical control movement with 

corresponding cockpit display movement is needed to meet the equal level of safety to 

accomplish the requirements of § 61.31(g)(2)(iii). 
4

Although the petitioner argues that SAMI’s set-up does not compromise the minimum level 

of safety as intended by the current rule, the FAA found that the petitioner failed to support or 

validate this claim. The simulation device does not have flight controls or power levers; does 

not hold a letter of authorization from the FAA to document its fidelity; and emergency 

decent procedures training can only be accomplished with the use of the autopilot. Therefore, 

SAMI’s simulation device set-up does not meet current standards for any training device and 

consequently does not meet an equivalent level of safety. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not provide an 

equivalent level of safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Southern 

AeroMedical Institute for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.31(g)(2) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2016. 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service